The Palatka daily news. (Palatka, Fla.) 1884-1888, 1887-04-26
Head Notes Corrected.

The fact that the head notes of decis.
ions of the Supreme Court published in
our issue of the Goth inst were incorrect
leads us to reprint them. Paragraph (oD
of the case Of
q. w. Wright, Appellant, VS.. j. w.
Terry. Appellee-Escambia County,
Should read
al The contract did not give the EN-
ployees of Terry lien ON the logs for
their labor or wages.
The other cases given incorrectly should
be as follows:
William ID. Chipley. Appellant, vs.
Wayne h. Atkinson, Appellee-Es-
Gambia County.
RANEY, j.:
l. An action lies in behalf of an en-
ployee against a person who has ma
| liciOusly procured the employer to- dis
charge such employee from employment
in which he is engaged under a legal
| contract, for certain period. provided
damage result to the employee from such
discharge.
,. An action Will also lie where the
period for which the employment is to
| continue is not certain. if damage result
| from the discharge; even though. from
| inability To ascertain the amount of the
| damage, u verdict for nominal damages
| only should result.
> The fact that no contract nor any
| legal right OfOIe employee a. against
| the employer. IS violated by the employer,
| or that no action can be maintained by the
| employee against the employer for such
| discharge. does not prevent a recovery
| against the third person who has mali
| CiOusly procured the discharge and
| which discharge would not have oc-
| CURED but for such procurement.
| 4. An act done or attempt made by a
| third party with the malicious intent to
| procure such a discharge. but not sue
cessful in procuring it, will not support an
/ action brought for malICiOuSly procuring
the discharge. The actual procurement
| of the discharge Is an essential To such
an action.
;. The declaration alleged i'm effect
that there was a contract for employment
to IL. continued for Il period of time
| fiei1i. it was error 10 charge the Jury that
the plaintiff could recover even though
there was mo contract for "A definite term
| Of service.
| q. An absence from the agreement Oh
contract of service of any stipulation foT
| "A certain amount of wages or COmpen-
satiOn, Will not defeat "a recovery. III
tine value of the compensation to- he
paid can H. asccrtaine,i in any legal way
IT is sufficient.
:. \ discharge bv the employer is es
sential to a recovery. Ii the employees
was not discharged. but voluntarily left
the employment ON account of the con
duct of the party charged with having
procured his discharge, the action car
| not be maintained.
;. The speculative profits of propose,
business can not be the basis of the as
sessment of actual damages. Where
however. in a case of like kind To tn,
one set up in the first count of the de
claration, the defendant knew or lie
lieved, or had reason To believe that tn,
employer had promised or did actually
intend to admit the plaintiff into part
| nership with him, the fact of sucl
knowledge or belief or reason to believ,
such promise or intention. NAV be con
sidered by the jury in passing upon tn,
motion of the defendant and i'll tixina
exemplary damages.
9. One person may withhold gratuitN
from, or may break his contract with.
second person. for the reason that tn,
second person retains third person il
his employ or with an interest in hi:
business. without giving right of actor
To- the third person No legal right of tn,
third person is violated by the first person
who simply so withhOlds or breaks hi
contract for such reason. nor is Their,
| any pTlNltN oI contract between TIE hts
and the third persons. The assume,
reason for the With olding or breach Il
not of itself. or with the mere withhold
ing of the gratuity or the mere breacl
of the contract. a ground of action: no
II proof of the mere Withholding a
breach. because of such retention of TIN
third person. proof of procurement b,
the first person of the discharge. Ii i
permissible. however. III an action lik,
this To show that such Withholding q
breach was nlaliciously used by the frs
person To procure or persuade the secon,
To discharge the third person.
, judgement reversed and new tria
, granted,
W. A. Blount. for Appellant Liddol
n Carter. j. {. Avery. for Appellee.
John \. Frese, Plaintiff in Error vs.
The State of Florida. Defendant in III
ror-Hernando County.
: RANEY. j;
! l. The sale of spurious liquor, withou
having license as a dealer in spiritou
liquors. l. a miSsiemeanor. and prose
cutlon of the OffenSs- may he Institute
within two years next after the com
mission Of the offense. under the Act a
: July 10th, lS;2. page 40, Mcclellan
Digest.
:. A single sale of a spurious hquo
n without having a license il a violatio
e of the provisions of the Revenue Act c
= 1888, chapter 34l3l
j. n statute which enacts that an oi
: fense shall he punished by fine, Is M
E rendered unconstitutional by the fas